Terrorists or Freedom Fighters

[Pax]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Interesting point. The difference is, of course discrimination of target. The US has a specific target, and the Libyans, any people of a particular culture would do, since the goal was terror, not a particular person.

Actually, it's easier for the U.S. to discriminate. It has more ways to deliver death than libya.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Verto


Only if you want to call the Civil Rights movement a terroristic one.

That's part of the question. Could the civil rights movement that caused loss of revenue be considered a terrorist act. I mean what terrorizes a capitalist more than loss of Capital?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

Actually, it's easier for the U.S. to discriminate. It has more ways to deliver death than libya.

If the Libyans can't discriminate, then they shouldn't be employing the attack in the first place. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians are, very definably, terroristic.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


So you would classify the Nazi party as freedom fighters? IIRC that was exactly what they claimed to be. Would you actually put the Nazis and America's revolutionary leaders in the same category?

what's the difference. Part of the reasoniung by hand the American revolution was the desire to expand westward which caused the genocide of many indian cultures vs the nazi determination to rid the world of one culture in particular.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

That's part of the question. Could the civil rights movement that caused loss of revenue be considered a terrorist act. I mean what terrorizes a capitalist more than loss of Capital?

There are property laws, and thus this was mere lawlessness at first, although it morphed into open warfare.

[Pax]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


If the Libyans can't discriminate, then they shouldn't be employing the attack in the first place. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians are, very definably, terroristic.

So dresden and Hiroshima are terrorist actions by the Allies in WWII. By allies I mean U.S. and Britain.

[MrBaggins]

Ethnic cleansing by a state != terrorism.

They have different goals. The goal of terrorism is an attempt at some form of policy change. The goal of ethnic cleansing is utter elimination of an ethnic group in the entire society.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

So dresden and Hiroshima are terrorist actions by the Allies in WWII. By allies I mean U.S. and Britain.

Open, uniform warfare between two nation states is classified as warfare, not terrorist action. The size or type of weaponry involved isn't relevant.

[Pax]

The goal of ethnic cleansing is not to terrorize at all but to cleanse. It seems more likely that assasinations and bombing(strategic or otherwise) can be used to terrorize.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
The goal of ethnic cleansing is not to terrorize at all but to cleanse. It seems more likely that assasinations and bombing(strategic or otherwise) can be used to terrorize.

If done by individuals in an indescriminate fashion, absolutely. If done by regular troops, while under the articles of war, between two states, absolutely not.

[Verto]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


The Civil Rights movement used largely non-violent means. MLK jr. always preached non-violent action.

I agree that the Boston Tea Party wasn't terrorism, but I disagree with the analogy.

The Boston Tea party and boycotting for example.

That was the premise for the analogy.

[Pax]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


If done by individuals in an indescriminate fashion, absolutely. If done by regular troops, while under the articles of war, between two states, absolutely not.

I don't understand what you're saying.

[MrBaggins]

The Boston Tea Party included violent destruction of property (and ultimately morphed into warfare)... something which MLK jr wouldn't have advocated. Thats why I wouldn't group the two.

I agree that the Birmingham boycott was non-violent.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
How do you come up with the classification of the American "Founding Fathers" as terrorists? With the exception of certain fringe groups they eschewed violence against civilians and by and large attempted to conduct their struggle according to the rules of warfare of their age.

This is the problem with applying a modern definition of terrorism to groups like the American Revolutionaries. In the 1700s, the practice of specifically targeting British officers was considered unacceptable("terroristic"). However, in modern warfare snipers were commonly used against high profile persons and officers.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

I don't understand what you're saying.

Strategic bombing, or tactical bombing by regular armed forces, on another nation state, is not considered terrorism. It's considered an act of war.